AR-15 shooting a single .223 round literally rips upper half of the body from victims lower half

[woodwork201]

According to a retired Marine Corps Colonel, the .223 in an AR is far, far, more dangerous than any 5.56 mm round and can literally split the top half of the body from the bottom half. The next round out of the gun decapitates the next victim, with a single shot - literally rips the head from the body.

This has to be true because the guy who said it is an expert witness for California and he swore this to be a fact in Court and the rules of evidence for expert witnesses is that they have to have personal knowledge of the truth of that to which they attest.

Marine Colonel Tarnishes Tin Eagles with False Testimony

Retired Marine Colonel Craig Tucker is throwing in his 25 years of Marine Corps service, combat experience and military expertise to deny Californians their Second Amendment rights. The problem is, he’s doing it on a bed of verifiably false allegations of what today’s Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR)...

www.nssf.org

 

[Kruska]

According to a retired Marine Corps Colonel, the .223 in an AR is far, far, more dangerous than any 5.56 mm round and can literally split the top half of the body from the bottom half. The next round out of the gun decapitates the next victim, with a single shot - literally rips the head from the body.

This has to be true because the guy who said it is an expert witness for California and he swore this to be a fact in Court and the rules of evidence for expert witnesses is that they have to have personal knowledge of the truth of that to which they attest.

This is all well known. And anyone who is into weapons also knows as to where the AR-15 derives from.

Therefore IMO, this is not the issue - but how to deal and handle with the existing 2nd Amendment is.

 

[JGalt]

This is all well known. And anyone who is into weapons also knows as to where the AR-15 derives from.

Therefore IMO, this is not the issue - but how to deal and handle with the existing 2nd Amendment is.

Most leftists just deal with the Second Amendment by way of cope and seethe. It's the only way they're allowed to deal with it.

 

[Kruska]

Most leftists just deal with the Second Amendment by way of cope and seethe. It's the only way they're allowed to deal with it.

Nothing to do with lefties or rightists - the American society simply beholds people that are in opposition as to how firearms are presently regulated.

Since common sense doesn't prevail, the final word however can only come in via the respective lawmakers and by the USSC.

Since both are instrumented by the respective US government and parties - it is lastly a "political" decision. (Which usually excludes common sense).

 

[JGalt]

Nothing to do with lefties or rightists - the American society simply beholds people that are in opposition as to how firearms are presently regulated.

Since common sense doesn't prevail, the final word however can only come in via the respective lawmakers and by the USSC.

Since both are instrumented by the respective US government and parties - it is lastly a "political" decision. (Which usually excludes common sense).

We don't need the Supreme Court to reinterpret the meaning of the Second Amendment. It already says what it means:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The left can debate the "well regulated militia" all they want to and try to interpret it as meaning "only the military should have guns." But that would negate the rest of the amendment.

A bunch of smart motherfuckers those founding fathers were. They saw the possibility of tyrants emerging at some point in time, and they nipped it in the bud.

 

[Kruska]

We don't need the Supreme Court to reinterpret the meaning of the Second Amendment. It already says what it means:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The left can debate the "well regulated militia" all they want to and try to interpret it as meaning "only the military should have guns." But that would negate the rest of the amendment.

A bunch of smart motherfuckers those founding fathers were. They saw the possibility of tyrants emerging at some point in time, and they nipped it in the bud.

The above is your, to me well known personal interpretation.
However there is no "official" MILITIA in the present day USA - but loads of illegal Militias.

In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

Furthermore I can't imagine the "legality" for a State - e.g. Arkansas to allow for a militia whilst e.g. Colorado wouldn't - and the Federal government simply acquitting towards some States having a militia and others not. Not even to mention the size of a respective official State militia and it's regulations.

 

[JGalt]

The above is your, to me well known personal interpretation.
However there is no "official" MILITIA in the present day USA - but loads of illegal Militias.

In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

Furthermore I can't imagine the "legality" for a State - e.g. Arkansas to allow for a militia whilst e.g. Colorado wouldn't - and the Federal government simply acquitting towards some States having a militia and others not.

There is no federal or state law against Americans forming groups to arm and train. What state laws there are only prohibit Americans from actively engaging in activities reserved for the military or law enforcement.

And if it ever comes to the point where the US military and law enforcement is overwhelmed or fails, those laws mean less than a bucket of spit.

 

[Kruska]

There is no federal or state law against Americans forming groups to arm and train. What state laws there are only prohibit Americans from actively engaging in activities reserved for the military or law enforcement.

And if it ever comes to the point where the US military and law enforcement is overwhelmed or fails, those laws mean less than a bucket of spit.

It doesn't change the FACT - that there isn't a single "official" unorganized State Militia in existence.

So get one done first, and then we can see about what would then happen to those "arms" that are not in the possession of Militia members. And as I had indicated already - as to how many people would even be acquitted towards a respective States unorganized Militia, and what those "Militia regulations" would include/pertain to.

Anything else is just wishful thinking and therefore plain theory. However anyone above the age of 45 (not being a member in the NG or a former US Armed Forces member - up to age 64) is excluded from the Militias "recruitment pool". wooosh - there go a hundred million arms.

BTW - what does in your opinion, the existing NG represent? According to my knowledge: it's an existing "organized Militia".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The above is your, to me well known personal interpretation.
However there is no "official" MILITIA in the present day USA - but loads of illegal Militias.

In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

Furthermore I can't imagine the "legality" for a State - e.g. Arkansas to allow for a militia whilst e.g. Colorado wouldn't - and the Federal government simply acquitting towards some States having a militia and others not. Not even to mention the size of a respective official State militia and it's regulations.

Numbnuts the government does not have a second amendment right.

 

[Blues Man]

 

[JGalt]

It doesn't change the FACT - that there isn't a single "official" unorganized State Militia in existence.

So get one done first, and then we can see about what would then happen to those "arms" that are not in the possession of Militia members. And as I had indicated already - as to how many people would even be acquitted towards a respective States unorganized Militia, and what those "Militia regulations" would include/pertain to.

Anything else is just wishful thinking and therefore plain theory. However anyone above the age of 45 (not being a member in the NG or a former US Armed Forces member - up to age 64) is excluded from the Militias "recruitment pool". wooosh - there go a hundred million arms.

BTW - what does in your opinion, the existing NG represent? According to my knowledge: it's an existing "organized Militia".

Of course there are no "official" unorganized state militias, silly.

The first rule of unorganized militias is: You do not talk about unorganized militias.

But I will add this: They're basically just a bunch of good old boys and girls who own guns and like the outdoors.

 

[Kruska]

Numbnuts the government does not have a second amendment right.

Where did I state this??? - the numbnut is YOU.

 

[Kruska]

Of course there are no "official" unorganized state militias,

Exactly - so why did you bring it up?

But I will add this: They're basically just a bunch of good old boys and girls who own guns and like the outdoors.

- whatever you wish to believe.

 

[JGalt]

Exactly - so why did you bring it up?

- whatever you wish to believe.

Regardless, the Second Amendment is not up for debate. Especially by foreigners who have no say in how my country conducts its affairs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where did I state this??? - the numbnut is YOU.

What is the second amendment for? It's not for the government

 

[Bell Huey]

The above is your, to me well known personal interpretation.
However there is no "official" MILITIA in the present day USA - but loads of illegal Militias.

In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

Furthermore I can't imagine the "legality" for a State - e.g. Arkansas to allow for a militia whilst e.g. Colorado wouldn't - and the Federal government simply acquitting towards some States having a militia and others not. Not even to mention the size of a respective official State militia and it's regulations.

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Pete7469]

Most leftists just deal with the Second Amendment by way of cope and seethe. It's the only way they're allowed to deal with it.

You can bet there are sanitation issues as well.

 

[Auld Phart]

The above is your, to me well known personal interpretation.
However there is no "official" MILITIA in the present day USA - but loads of illegal Militias.

In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

Furthermore I can't imagine the "legality" for a State - e.g. Arkansas to allow for a militia whilst e.g. Colorado wouldn't - and the Federal government simply acquitting towards some States having a militia and others not. Not even to mention the size of a respective official State militia and it's regulations

Therefore a State would need to establish an "officially recognized" Militia first - which would then be under State control, and only "validated" members would then according to your own conviction be allowed to "bear arms" - thus rendering the possession of tens, if not hundreds of millions of firearms ILLEGAL.

why do you ignore the second half of the Amendment?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[2aguy]

According to a retired Marine Corps Colonel, the .223 in an AR is far, far, more dangerous than any 5.56 mm round and can literally split the top half of the body from the bottom half. The next round out of the gun decapitates the next victim, with a single shot - literally rips the head from the body.

This has to be true because the guy who said it is an expert witness for California and he swore this to be a fact in Court and the rules of evidence for expert witnesses is that they have to have personal knowledge of the truth of that to which they attest.

Marine Colonel Tarnishes Tin Eagles with False Testimony

Retired Marine Colonel Craig Tucker is throwing in his 25 years of Marine Corps service, combat experience and military expertise to deny Californians their Second Amendment rights. The problem is, he’s doing it on a bed of verifiably false allegations of what today’s Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR)...

www.nssf.org

Are you serious or is this a joke post?

 

[there4eyeM]

It will only take the re-examination of the nuance of a couple of words in the second amendment to wrest some sense out of the present excuse for a debate. The amendment itself may remain verbally intact.